The Standard Group Plc is a multi-media organization with investments in media
platforms spanning newspaper print
operations, television, radio broadcasting, digital and online services. The
Standard Group is recognized as a
leading multi-media house in Kenya with a key influence in matters of national and
international interest.
Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi’s admission in an affidavit yesterday that he lied to Kenyans over the controversial Sh5 trillion infrastructure fund is not surprising, given that he has been engaging in populist politics at the expense of the sensitive and heavy workload his office carries.
In official court papers filed recently at the Milimani High Court, the Treasury boss, without flinching, swore an affidavit last week confessing that he misled Kenyans on the establishment of the National Infrastructure Fund.
He had earlier appeared before a joint sitting of the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning and the Select Committee on Public Debt and Privatisation on January 13, when he lied to Kenyans.
Speaking before the MPs, Mbadi made a declaration that has now turned out to be dangerously false: that the National Infrastructure Fund had already been established as a limited liability company.
Through a supplementary affidavit filed last week at the High Court, Mbadi agreed that he misled the country. He has also found it difficult to explain how much money is spent on convening the NYOTA fund and other empowerment meetings around the country.
“During the said proceedings, I mistakenly informed the Committee that the National Infrastructure Fund had already been established as a limited liability company,” Mbadi states in paragraph five of his sworn affidavit.
The Treasury CS sought to explain his falsehood by blaming his own technical officers.
He told the court that, at the time of making the statement, he had been informed by technical officers at the Ministry that the process of registration of the entity commenced in December 2025.
“I genuinely believed, albeit mistakenly, that the incorporation process had been finalised, noting that the processes at the Business Registration Bureau are quite seamless and the process of incorporation ordinarily takes a few days,” Mbadi said in his latest affidavit.
This admission is contained in a supplementary affidavit filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court.
It is in relation to a petition brought by four citizens, led by Nakuru doctor Magare Gikenyi, challenging the legality of the government’s secret plan to create a corporate vehicle to manage public money on a scale larger than Kenya’s entire national budget.
And the truth, as Mbadi was finally compelled to admit, is stark.
The Sh5 trillion fund, grandly announced as the centrepiece of President William Ruto’s infrastructure transformation agenda, is nothing but a ghost: it has no legal existence, has no registration, and no public money has been spent.
Reserved name
The entity’s only paper trail is a Cabinet resolution quietly passed at a secret meeting on December 15, 2025.
“I have since established that the entity has not been incorporated, with the only formal step taken toward its incorporation being the reservation of the proposed name ‘National Infrastructure Fund’ on December 19, 2025, which reservation has since lapsed,” Mbadi admitted in his affidavit.
The admission is extraordinary. Not only was the Fund never formed, but the government could not even be bothered to renew a reserved name before it expired. And yet, for weeks, Kenyans were told by the country’s top finance official that the entity was up and running.
Mbadi had served up a bombshell in his earlier affidavit in court papers, one that goes to the very heart of Kenya’s constitutional architecture governing public money.
The Cabinet Secretary admitted in court that, despite its grand name and the use of the word “Fund”, the National Infrastructure Fund is not legally a public fund at all.
Mbadi had earlier admitted to the High Court that the entity will not be governed by Article 206 of the Constitution, the provision that governs public funds such as the Consolidated Fund, which is subject to strict parliamentary oversight.
“Though the entity was described as a ‘Fund’, its objects are not those of a ‘Fund’ within the meaning of Article 206 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010,” the CS declared in his earlier replying affidavit.
This effectively confirmed that the government intended to route trillions of shillings through a corporate structure that sidesteps constitutional public finance safeguards.
In fact, Mbadi had revealed the government intended to establish the entity as a Government-Owned Enterprise under the Companies Act, a private limited liability company, not a constitutional public fund subject to the oversight mechanisms the Constitution requires.
But even with the lies and confusion, the scale of what the government is attempting is breathtaking.
The National Infrastructure Fund PLC is designed to mobilise in excess of Sh5 trillion, more than Kenya’s entire 2024/2025 national budget of approximately Sh3.9 trillion.
Public character
Yet this colossal sum would be managed through a private company structure, outside the constitutional safeguards that govern the Consolidated Fund and other public funds.
Mbadi had vigorously defended this arrangement, insisting that the corporate structure would enhance, rather than diminish, accountability.
“The incorporation of the entity does not in any way diminish its public character, constitutional accountability, or statutory oversight, but rather provides an appropriate and robust legal framework for the transparent, efficient, and responsible management of public resources in line with sound corporate governance principles,” he argued.
The entire controversy traces back to a secret Cabinet meeting on December 15, 2025. A confidential Cabinet Communication, marked “SECRET” and bearing reference CAB/GEN.3/1/1VOL.1, was filed in court by the Treasury CS himself.
Signed by Cabinet Secretary Mercy Wanjau, the document shows that the Cabinet considered and approved the establishment of the National Infrastructure Fund PLC at its 7th Cabinet Meeting, 2025, based on Cabinet Memorandum CAB(25)192, and that it is CS Mbadi and Attorney General Dorcas Oduor who jointly presented the proposal.
The same was done with no public participation and no parliamentary approval was sought.
The CS told the court that the decision was driven by urgent national priorities.
“The establishment of the entity was necessitated by an overriding public interest to provide timely, efficient, and cost-effective mechanisms for the financing, development, and delivery of large-scale national infrastructure projects, while progressively reducing over-reliance on public borrowing and taxation,” he says.
Dr Magare and three other petitioners challenging the Cabinet’s December decision to approve the fund’s creation have filed a petition arguing that the structure and the establishment of the National Infrastructure Fund through executive action violate multiple constitutional provisions, including Articles 201, 204, and 206, which govern public finance management.
They accuse the government of bypassing constitutional safeguards on public finance, parliamentary oversight and public participation.
The petitioners argue that creating the entity through a Cabinet resolution threatens transparency and violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, including Articles on sovereignty of the people, prudent use of public resources and separation of powers.
Dr Gikenyi and the other petitioners, joined by Eliud Karanja Matindi, Philemon Abuga Nyakundi, and Dishon Keroti Mogire, have also urged the court to reject Mbadi’s bid to lift conservatory orders that currently block the Fund’s implementation.
They have pointed out the court to glaring contradictions between Kenya’s own state organs.
While Treasury says the NIF will be established under the Companies Act, Parliament is arguing it would be set up under Article 206(1) of the Constitution and Section 24(4) of the Public Finance Management Act.
“There is clear confusion and lack of clarity about the legal basis for establishment of the impugned NIF between and within two key State organs responsible for ensuring compliance with the Constitution,” the petitioners told the court.
Even more alarming, in submissions signed by Matindi, he warned that the government has reserved the right to bypass Parliament entirely.
In a display of audacity that has come to define this saga, the same CS who just admitted to lying to Parliament now wants the court to dismiss the case and stay out of the matter.
“The Application is therefore misconceived, is unfounded in fact and law, is speculative and is founded on unwarranted fears. I urge the Court to dismiss the same with costs,” Mbadi declares.
He further argued that judicial intervention at this stage would offend the doctrine of separation of powers, as the action sought to be challenged still lies wholly within the purview of the Executive — a remarkable assertion from a CS whose Executive arm was caught misleading Parliament about the very matter under judicial scrutiny.
The petitioners, however, maintain that Mbadi’s own contradictions, compounded by his confession of misleading Parliament, are precisely why the court must remain seized of the matter and should not lift the interim orders in place.
